aa5874

Please, you are CONTRADICTING yourself.

Once you establish something as FICTION given the context then you have established that it was NOT likely or probable.

rizdek

I can discuss the likelihood of something within the context of a fiction setting. This can be done, and is often done when folks are discussing movies and other fiction works. You may consider it a waste of time, but it's done all the time.

I am not contradicting myself. I can recognize the story of Jesus dying on the cross may well be fiction and that there may never have been an apostle Peter, But nonetheless, I can also consider, given the characteristics of Peter and the context of this fiction story and MY UNDERSTANDING of the setting, whether there is some way in which Peter could have both denied knowing Jesus AND avoided being captured WHEN Jesus was captured.

aa5874

This is BC&H. I am NOT at a the movies.

Let us do history.

Duvduv

The authors of Acts and the epistles forgot to include the slightest insight into what Paul or Saul knew about their Jesus before the crucifixion despite the fact that Saul or Paul were around Judea when we are told that thousands of people knew about Jesus.
In Acts Saul worked for the Temple officials but said nothing regarding the trial of Jesus that ostensibly happened just a couple of years earlier.
Sounds again like those authors were writing before the gospel stories emerged in order for Saul or Paul to be able to comment on his knowledge of the Jesus figure when he was active.

aa5874

Come on Duduv. Do you actually believe there is history in the fiction stories in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings???


This is astonishing!!! You actually believe there was a real 1st century Paul.

Not even the Church knew when Paul lived. And they knew of Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings originated NO earlier than the 2nd century.

Adam

You mean, don't you.....so that your last sentence should instead read:
"Sounds again like those authors were writing before the gospel stories emerged that would have enabled Saul or Paul to comment on his knowledge of the Jesus figure when he was active."

Your argument above is often made here on FRDB. However, it is faulty if I am correct that the gospel writers (except the final editors) made it a point to only write about what they had personally experienced as eyewitnesses. Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh, so Paul never wrote about him during that time. He was just observing NT convention.

Duvduv

That makes no difference. Is it logical to tell the reader about his job as a persecutor and nothing before that when they portray him in Judea of roughly the same age as Jesus who had a revelation only a couple of years after the resurrection?
If Paul was there when thousands knew of the Christ so where was Paul?
On a business trip for Rabbi Gamliel in Mexico?

Duvduv

Well Peter is mentioned in the gospels and Acts. So we knew where he was when Jesus was around.
But where was Saul/Paul?!Peter got incorporated into the gospels but Paul was off on vacation in Tahiti.
Acts is a composite work with the events of Peter combined with the story of Saul who gets morphed into Paul. But the story could not involve things from the gospel stories because they hadn't emerged yet.

aa5874

Well, you have just EXPOSED your own problem.

Where was EVERYBODY when Jesus was supposedly around???

Everybody was in Galilee???

Everybody was in Jerusalem???

Duvduv

It doesn't matter. The point is that the texts are SILENT about anything to do with Saul/Paul's life during the lifetime of Jesus in Judea despite the fact that so many other people heard of him. In fact, the texts are SILENT even about what Saul/Paul might have heard second-hand about Jesus before Saul/Paul became a freelance persecutor.

Complete silence. They were both in Judea and were about the same age. And Saul/Paul is SILENT about what "he" might have known from conversations with anyone who knew anything just a few years before Saul/Paul had his revelation.

Of course he doesn't even explain how so many succesful churches survived so much persecution in Judea and had members who were such good Christians despite having received their gospel from men.....